Aunt Gertrude vs Regulators
My Great Aunt Gertrude always cheated.
DeeDee (“Great Aunt Gertrude” was too much for our toddler brains) often babysat my brother and I, entertaining us by playing board games. She constantly changed the rules... to make sure we won. She controlled the outcome and, for us, it was always happy.
Everyone needs a DeeDee... someone who thinks you're perfect, and is always on your side.
Problems can arise when those who control the rules have a less pleasant agenda, and possess the power to change them any time things aren't going as they wish.
We're currently in the throes of a seemingly well intended safety campaign by the federal government... and they appear to either change the regulations periodically, or allow individual enforcement folk to interpret them as they see fit.
Make no mistake, there's an agenda, otherwise they wouldn't proclaim the number of accidents prevented, or lives saved. How DOES one tally an accident that didn't happen? Why do press releases trumpeting the closing of unsafe operators... often including the same miscreants repeatedly? Is it about safety, or making the regulators relevant? (or, to be fair, both?)
It's disturbing when regulators suggest that we sacrifice profit for more safety. Safety costs money, and paying for equipment and driver training comes FROM profits. There already is a powerful incentive for most private bus companies to operate safely. Mess up and you're out of business, mess up BIG and you may be personally bankrupt and in jail.
Contrast that to the current mess at the publicly owned MBTA in Boston… anyone fired?
Toll booths are demonstrably unsafe, but government needs the revenue. I'm not saying tolls are unnecessary, but the hypocrisy is evident. For Government, revenue trumps safety.
It was a big deal when that administrator did a “ride along” in a truck. I ride airplanes a lot... and wouldn't presume that translates into significant knowledge about how to pilot one, let alone regulate the airline industry.
When a regulator blows it, they MIGHT be disciplined, or even transferred to another bureaucracy. In the recent past companies that had just received the highest rating possible were involved in serious accidents (then forced out of business when re-inspected). What happened to the functionaries who gave the initial approval? Have we given serious thought to whether what they're measuring has serious impact on safety in real life?
It would be refreshing if there was a significant presence in the regulating agencies of people who've actually participated in the industry they control, who actually earned the profits necessary to operate a safe company.
Having hearings and listening to operators at meetings is OK, but in the end, regulators have no stake in the industry surviving or thriving.
One of the worst maritime disasters in history occurred when the steamer Eastland capsized at her Chicago dock in 1915. A major contributing factor was the (heavy) lifeboats installed on her upper decks, making the ship unstable. They were retrofitted as the result of standards passed in the wake of the Titanic disaster 3 years before. A well intended, but poorly executed, regulation helped kill more than 800 people.
Ever wonder what “denatured” alcohol is? During Prohibition, authorities were frustrated by bootleggers ability to obtain, and resell, industrial alcohol. They cleverly decided that if they forced industrial distillers to add poison to their product, that the public would take notice, and stop trying to drink it.
Wanna guess what happened? A well intended (that phrase AGAIN) regulation was responsible for killing thousands of the folks it was meant to protect.
Well intentioned national and local response to covid turned out to be rife with error. That’s understandable considering the urgency at the time. What is more difficult to accept was Bureaucrats unwillingness to adapt to evolving understanding of the science. Instead, they did what Bureaucracies often do… protect the institution, rather than society.
Two key points here...
Good intentions are no substitute for competence. The more real life exposure industry regulators have, the more likely they are to get it right. Populating agencies with politicians who will eventually move on is not a good solution, nor is filling them with bureaucrats who's primary goal is to justify their continued existence.
No matter how sincere, and well intended, real safety will always be a secondary goal for those folks. These bodies need to include some experienced transportation professionals, not as witnesses, but as participants.
And...
Enforcing arbitrary rules for the sake of appearances... looking like we're “doing something”, making sure that EVERY company inspected has some measurable (and “fineable” ) violation, may accomplish the opposite of what is intended.
Regulatory perfection doesn't equal safety.
The least safe bus is still less dangerous than the safest automobile. When regulation that has a marginal impact on real world safety drives struggling coach companies out of business, people will be forced into cars, with the congestion, pollution and traffic deaths that accompany that shift.
Those deaths will be just as hard to measure as the accidents and deaths “prevented” by the current regulatory blitz.
DeeDee was truly “well intended” and I cherish her memory, but the current regulatory regime is not my Great Aunt Gertrude.
